CR07-801 09/08/20

REASONABLE STOP DEFENSE TO ELUDING A POLICE OFFICER, 23 V.S.A. § 1133(c)

This case presents the defense that (Def)_______________ brought [his] [her] vehicle to a stop in a manner, time, and distance that was reasonable under the circumstances. If you find that the State has proven all of the essential elements of eluding a police officer, beyond a reasonable doubt, then you will need to consider this defense. If the State has not proven all of the essential elements of eluding a police officer, then you must return a verdict of “not guilty.”

(Def)_______________ bears the burden of proving this defense by a preponderance of the evidence. This means that the evidence must show that the elements of the defense are more likely true than not true. This burden of proof is less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

In order to prove this defense, (Def)_______________ must have proven that [he] [she] brought [his] [her] vehicle to a stop in a manner, time, and distance that was reasonable under the circumstances. When you consider this defense, you should consider all of the surrounding facts and circumstances proven by the evidence.

If the State has proven the essential elements of eluding a police officer beyond a reasonable doubt, and if (Def)_______________ has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that [he] [she] stopped [his] [her] vehicle in a reasonable manner, time, and distance, then you must find [him] [her] guilty of eluding a police officer. However, if the State has not proven the essential elements of eluding a police officer, or if (Def)_______________ has proven the elements of the reasonable stop defense, then you must find (Def)_______________ not guilty.